I think you are right, Renata. While I'm sure he is a very nice man, he hasn't got "statesmanship" like his mother. He has done many good things a PoW, but I doubt many see him as a "Father of the Nation" which a Monarch should be, but perhaps more like an excentric uncle. Even though I support his succetion right, a part of me wish for him to be left alone to do the things he enjoys and are good at. He could be a true support for his son behind the curtains

I think you are right, Renata. While I'm sure he is a very nice man, he hasn't got "statesmanship" like his mother. He has done many good things a PoW, but I doubt many see him as a "Father of the Nation" which a Monarch should be, but perhaps more like an excentric uncle. Even though I support his succetion right, a part of me wish for him to be left alone to do the things he enjoys and are good at. He could be a true support for his son behind the curtains

Did his mother have 'statemanship' when she became Queen? No.

Did George VI have statesmanship when he became King? No.

They both grew into that side of the job and Charles will as well - when he is given the chance.

Edward VII was written off by many people when he was Prince of Wales with very similar arguments - he knew about how to wear clothes but not how to talk to leaders - he proved them wrong.

Charles will as well - unless his mother has failed in a major part of her role - that of training her heir. As she has failed in very few areas in her reign I don't think she will have failed in this one either.

I just do not understand WHY some people expect the Royal Family to be super human, above it all. When all is said and done, they go to the bathroom just like everyone else, they eat food just like everyone else, they get sick just like everyone else and GASP, they are sexual beings just like everyone else.

This hypocrisy amazes me, some people expect them to be above reproach, at least in the public arena and yet they readily accept for example that both Monarchs and their children have illicit relationships throughout their lives. I have read that it is considered a "royal preogative?"

This as long as it is not in my face and appearances are kept up is tiresome, especially when the public pushes their way into their most private lives and laps it up like dogs.

I think you are right, Renata. While I'm sure he is a very nice man, he hasn't got "statesmanship" like his mother. He has done many good things a PoW, but I doubt many see him as a "Father of the Nation" which a Monarch should be, but perhaps more like an excentric uncle. Even though I support his succetion right, a part of me wish for him to be left alone to do the things he enjoys and are good at. He could be a true support for his son behind the curtains

I don't quite know what you mean by statemanship. After personally watching him at a couple of events here in Australia he comes across as someone who knows what he is doing, who is approachable, willing to listen. He is very dignified and yet can let his guard down and actually have fun. He knows how to speak to people of all walks of life, political leaders and the homeless.
Yes he sounds a little fuddy duddy but he is a good orator. I think overall that I find dignified the best word to describe him. I think that he is eminatly suitable to be King.

I don't quite know what you mean by statemanship. After personally watching him at a couple of events here in Australia he comes across as someone who knows what he is doing, who is approachable, willing to listen. He is very dignified and yet can let his guard down and actually have fun. He knows how to speak to people of all walks of life, political leaders and the homeless.
Yes he sounds a little fuddy duddy but he is a good orator. I think overall that I find dignified the best word to describe him. I think that he is eminatly suitable to be King.

That post is exactly how I feel - he is approachable, knowledgeable, can speak to anyone of any level and will make a fine king.

I just do not understand WHY some people expect the Royal Family to be super human, above it all. When all is said and done, they go to the bathroom just like everyone else, they eat food just like everyone else, they get sick just like everyone else and GASP, they are sexual beings just like everyone else.

This hypocrisy amazes me, some people expect them to be above reproach, at least in the public arena and yet they readily accept for example that both Monarchs and their children have illicit relationships throughout their lives. I have read that it is considered a "royal preogative?"

This as long as it is not in my face and appearances are kept up is tiresome, especially when the public pushes their way into their most private lives and laps it up like dogs.

I rather feel that when someone has a relatively public job (I do) that one has to be mindful of the duties that come with it. The royals do as much pushing themselves out on the public (who else makes so many unpaid public appearances - that is all they do) as we do "lapping it up." I do not feel that I go and look for information about royals, it is out there, circulating and it's the coin of their realm - without it, they would be diminished in status and in wealth.

I do not expect them to be perfect (I do not care about their moral foibles, but I do notice them, as I would with anyone). We are not required to like any individual royal, either. When one of them becomes monarch, it is rather like having a job, though, isn't it? Taxpayers are paying them - and there's a job to be done, as I understand it.

Before that, they can do pretty much as they please. If they wanted to completely stay out of the public eye, they could do what others have done who want to be completely private. This is not what they want.

I rather feel that when someone has a relatively public job (I do) that one has to be mindful of the duties that come with it. The royals do as much pushing themselves out on the public (who else makes so many unpaid public appearances - that is all they do) as we do "lapping it up." I do not feel that I go and look for information about royals, it is out there, circulating and it's the coin of their realm - without it, they would be diminished in status and in wealth.

I do not expect them to be perfect (I do not care about their moral foibles, but I do notice them, as I would with anyone). We are not required to like any individual royal, either. When one of them becomes monarch, it is rather like having a job, though, isn't it? Taxpayers are paying them - and there's a job to be done, as I understand it.

Before that, they can do pretty much as they please. If they wanted to completely stay out of the public eye, they could do what others have done who want to be completely private. This is not what they want.

Where has any Royal stated that they were inviting the general public into their private life? Most of us are public in our work life, but we do get off work and we do have private lives that we lead. I don't know about anyone else, but whom I sleep with, I consider no one else business except my husband, that includes the people I work for. I also have set work hours, when I am off, I am off and engaged in leading my private life. Why are members of the royal family not entitled to a private life as well?

If I remember correctly, each British subject (taxpayer) pays the equivalent of two postage stamps per year for the Monarchy as a whole, to what extent do you believe that entitles such people to have intimate knowledge about the private affairs and business of the royal family?

Those unpaid appearances, I highly doubt if each royal family member who does such really thrives on it and would be disappointed if their public appearances were significantly diminished, do you? It is my understanding that they consider doing that work? That it is expected that they will do such activities?

Which then begs the question if the Royals are just like you and me , having on/off the clock hours and such, then why are they so special and Royal and seen and treated as such? (just asking for discussions sake)

But we can't really have a king who will still be known for the Camillagate incident.

It would make the British Monarchy a global laughing stock - all over again.

He's not known for it - your British press is known for it. If something as banal as that conversation prohibits Charles from becoming king - well it will be Britain that will be the laughingstock of the world - certainly not Charles.

Which then begs the question if the Royals are just like you and me , having on/off the clock hours and such, then why are they so special and Royal and seen and treated as such? (just asking for discussions sake)

History, tradition, custom for spans hundreds and hundreds of years, I would think.

We KNOW that past members of the Royal family have had their follibles, in the early part of last century, the King had a mistress that was very well known, I believe the current Duchess of Cornwall's either grand or great grandmother? Many if not most Princes of Wales have likewise had mistresses. We know this is not limited to just male members, Princess Margaret and Princess Anne both have had relationships outside of marriage, at least that is my understanding?

My point being, for the discussion of this thread, Prince Charles, his "Camillagate" tapes, etc are certainly not anything new and unique and past people who have become Monarch were not denied because of such.

I will be perfectly honest here, as someone who loves history, I am beyond fascinated with the British Royal Family in particular. I have spent countless hours in study of them. But I personally do not find them to be anything other than nice, ordinary human beings whom others have attributed some kind of almost saintly aura to.

The Monarch is the Head of State of the UK and The Commonwealth of Nations. Certain duties and responsibilities are ascribed to that person because of that status. Actually from what I have read, most are mainly interested if they can someday, somehow marry into the family OR get placed on the Honors List, besides loving to read juicy tidbits of royal sins that they can gossip about.

The Monarch is the Head of State of the UK and The Commonwealth of Nations. Certain duties and responsibilities are ascribed to that person because of that status. Actually from what I have read, most are mainly interested if they can someday, somehow marry into the family OR get placed on the Honors List, besides loving to read juicy tidbits of royal sins that they can gossip about.

I know what you mean by your first sentence here but there is no state called The Commonwealth of Nations. The the monarch isn't the Head of State - she is the Head of the Commonwealth but that isn't necessarily going to continue with Charles as some of the other nations of the Commonwealth have indicated that they don't see a need for the monarch of one country to have that position and have suggested that it rotate through the member nations - to show that they are now all equal rather than subservient to one - as was the case when there was the Empire.

I know what you mean by your first sentence here but there is no state called The Commonwealth of Nations. The the monarch isn't the Head of State - she is the Head of the Commonwealth but that isn't necessarily going to continue with Charles as some of the other nations of the Commonwealth have indicated that they don't see a need for the monarch of one country to have that position and have suggested that it rotate through the member nations - to show that they are now all equal rather than subservient to one - as was the case when there was the Empire.

Thank you iluvbertie. I did not know of this. It sounds reasonable to me to rotate the position. Would this cause any political/social upheaval? (not really sure upheaval is the word I want to use)

Where has any Royal stated that they were inviting the general public into their private life? Most of us are public in our work life, but we do get off work and we do have private lives that we lead. I don't know about anyone else, but whom I sleep with, I consider no one else business except my husband, that includes the people I work for. I also have set work hours, when I am off, I am off and engaged in leading my private life. Why are members of the royal family not entitled to a private life as well?

If I remember correctly, each British subject (taxpayer) pays the equivalent of two postage stamps per year for the Monarchy as a whole, to what extent do you believe that entitles such people to have intimate knowledge about the private affairs and business of the royal family?

Those unpaid appearances, I highly doubt if each royal family member who does such really thrives on it and would be disappointed if their public appearances were significantly diminished, do you? It is my understanding that they consider doing that work? That it is expected that they will do such activities?

Yes, that's why I was calling it "public" and "work." If I understand correctly, a royal could decide to abdicate or otherwise refuse these duties/work (just as I could quit my job). But, as I decide to stay in my job, I have to also stay within the job description, so to speak, which has many implicit moral components to it.

That's all I was trying to say - is that many people have to watch what is said or learned about their private lives, or they can have consequences in the workplace. It's not that different from many other jobs.

Where did I say that the public has a right to now about their (or my) life - only that if I were to allow parts of my life to be public, I might experience consequences. If I were to take an even more high profile job than the one I have, I'm well aware that there would be even more attempts for some people to find out about what my private life might be like.

For this reason, I have thought long and hard about being in politics or in a more public role than the one I have - I would expect others to do the same. That's all. It doesn't matter how much the public pays per capita (I'm sure it's less than 2 cents per American for the jobs that firemen or teachers or cops do - but public image still matters, as it does in most places). If the monarchy wants to continue to be limited in these tough financial days, they can of course ignore my point of view.

Which is just a point of view and not a statement on the rights of anyone.

Thank you iluvbertie. I did not know of this. It sounds reasonable to me to rotate the position. Would this cause any political/social upheaval? (not really sure upheaval is the word I want to use)

On another thread, some are arguing that such changes as having female equal rights of succession should never occur because it is wrong to breach tradition. I'm guessing that if Canada and Australia (for example) decide upon the death of HM to change their relationship to the Commonwealth, that would be sen by many as a bad thing (although what the non-moral consequences would be, I do not know enough to begin to say).

Charles will be a King who I believe won't truly be appreciated for all his good works until he's gone. I don't envisage a particulary long reign, but given that the man is already 63 and may very well not succeed until he's in his 70th decade, that's hardly surprising.

Charles will be a King who I believe won't truly be appreciated for all his good works until he's gone. I don't envisage a particulary long reign, but given that the man is already 63 and may very well not succeed until he's in his 70th decade, that's hardly surprising.

I think he will be adored by the public very late in life. I have surprisingly warm feelings towards him, and I think the public will appreciate him more and more as time goes by.

I imagine a pairing w Jaimie Oliver to champion organic foods in state run schools would be popular :-)

People will be awed by him once he is king and the public will embrace him.

Charles will be a King who I believe won't truly be appreciated for all his good works until he's gone. I don't envisage a particulary long reign, but given that the man is already 63 and may very well not succeed until he's in his 70th decade, that's hardly surprising.

If he is to make his 70th decade then I don't think many of use here will live to see it - I am only in my 6th now.

On another thread, some are arguing that such changes as having female equal rights of succession should never occur because it is wrong to breach tradition. I'm guessing that if Canada and Australia (for example) decide upon the death of HM to change their relationship to the Commonwealth, that would be sen by many as a bad thing (although what the non-moral consequences would be, I do not know enough to begin to say).

I really don't see any country giving up their membership of the Commonwealth on the death of HM. I don't know what benefits we get from membership - other than dominating the Commonwealth Games every four years and any chance to crow over the Poms etc is a good one - but I am sure there are good reasons for membership.

Being a member of the Commonwealth has nothing to do with changing our relationship to the Crown, of course.

I've said it before, that Charles would be more appreciated if people took the time to dig a little beyond the headlines. To see how intelligent and hard working he really is. He is far more than a few minute recording with his mistress.